Robin Shannon wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:54:51 -0800 (PST), Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
This is incorrect. Sometimes a definition *is* a falsifiable statement. For example, someone could write "ESP is the method by which a human can do such-and-such." The very definition presumes that ESP exists, which itself is controversial. No one has ever shown that any such phenomenon exists. The same is true for telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, and dozens of other alleged phenomenon.
No its not. ESP (Extra-sensual perception) is the perseption of extra-sensual stuff (or what ever the frig ESP is). That, ESP (in my, and your, and Tony Blair's POV) is a load of baloney is irrelevent, because whether ESP exists or not, does not change the fact that any Extra-sensual perception ''''''IS'''''' ESP. Me and you and Tony Blair don't believe that Extra-sensual perception exists, but we cant argue with what it is, (even though what it is, is impossible.). We should however note in the first paragragh that by far the majority of ppl think that it is a load of baloney. (that was more rambling that i was planning, but i hope you got my point.)
Yes. The point is that we need to be able to come to an understanding about the meaning of the language we use without necessarily agreeing about the phenomena that it describes.
Incidentally, the abbreviation, ESP normally stands for "Extra-Sensory Perception" instead of "Extre-Sensual Perception" Extra-sensual perception seems to have overtones of an improved sex life. :-)
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You are trying to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
Is the word strawman/strawhorse argument a purely wikimedia thing, because i had never heard the phrase before i subscribed to these lists?
"Straw man" is a commonly used term in logic and critical thinking. It may be written as one or two words. We have a whole article on it at [[Straw man]]
Ec